firefly
 
  0  
Reply Sat 4 Aug, 2012 01:40 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
The so-called "integrity" is already established with the application process. Adding another step does not improve it.

No, the registration process means you have satisfied the requirements to be included on the voter rolls.

Requiring voter ID at the polls helps to establish that you are the person whose name appears on the voter rolls.

We live in an era where identity theft can be a problem.

This particular law has already been legally challenged. It's now up to the courts to decide whether it should be upheld.

You and BillRM can go on repeating yourselves, since neither of you has anything new to say. I'll wait for the courts to decide.

I really don't think the law will be upheld, for reasons I've previously mentioned.


cicerone imposter
 
  3  
Reply Sat 4 Aug, 2012 01:46 pm
@firefly,
You wrote,
Quote:
You've discounted the validity and right of the people to duly elect representatives who propose and pass laws.


When the "duly elected representatives" do nothing to advance compromise and negotiate to pass legislation, they're not doing their jobs.

You must be deaf and dumb; the republicans have been obstructionists for the past 45 months. They're only goal is to make Obama a one term president.


You want progress in this climate? There's not cure for s........
0 Replies
 
Rockhead
 
  6  
Reply Sat 4 Aug, 2012 01:47 pm
@firefly,
"We live in an era where identity theft can be a problem."

this is a smokescreen.

identity theft is not even remotely related to this discussion...


to hell with the bank information and credit cards, I'm gonna go vote.

right...
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Sat 4 Aug, 2012 01:49 pm
@Rockhead,
They like to throw out smoke screens, because they really don't have a clue or defense for what they're doing.

They're still arguing about Obama's birth certificate.

0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Sat 4 Aug, 2012 04:07 pm
@firefly,
No we have little more to say Firefly as the words on that youtube video I had posted on this thread kind of said it all IE the voters ID law in PA is design to get Romney into the Whitehouse by blocking the poor from voting for Obama in PA.

Given that at least some of the leadership of the GOP was both too proud and too dumb not to state so in direct terms I do not see why you are still trying to pretend the law had anything to do with voter fraud that hardly exist and not just voters suppression.

Are you by any chance thinking of applying for the Dr. Goebbels position in the GOP Firefly?

If so, I will cheerfully give you a good reference as no one does a better Goebbels imitation in my opinion then you do. Twisted Evil
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Aug, 2012 05:01 pm
@Mame,
Laws are necessary to address actual problems, Mame. No problem, no need for a law.

Even OmSigDavid, the great libertarian when he isn't being a conservative, would agree with that one, ... woooouldn't he?
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sat 4 Aug, 2012 05:04 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Well, maybe not.

Here's Dave in his conservative suit.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  4  
Reply Sat 4 Aug, 2012 06:40 pm
@firefly,
firefly wrote:
I mentioned that the issue of absentee ballots was tangential to the topic of this thread. I brought it up because the issue of voter fraud does surface with absentee ballots.

Here's what you wrote:

Earlier, firefly wrote:
while it is tangential to the topic of this thread, the issues are still worth considering.

But that's simply not true. The issue is not worth considering, at least not in the context of this debate, because it has absolutely nothing to do with voter ID laws.

firefly wrote:
In the case of dementia sufferers, the numbers voting by absentee ballot appear substantial

No, they don't appear substantial. They don't appear to be anything because nobody tracks that sort of thing. This is what is known in politics as "making stuff up."
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Aug, 2012 07:11 pm
@joefromchicago,
The Constitution does not ensure the right to vote, it only states that specific groups shall not be denied the vote. I believe the guarantee and the requirements for voting rest with the states and not the Fed govt.
!!
cicerone imposter
 
  4  
Reply Sat 4 Aug, 2012 07:18 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
The U.S. Constitution stated in Amendment XV, which was ratified by the states in 1870:
"Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
firefly
 
  0  
Reply Sat 4 Aug, 2012 07:47 pm
@joefromchicago,
Quote:
No, they don't appear substantial. They don't appear to be anything because nobody tracks that sort of thing. This is what is known in politics as "making stuff up."

People are trying to track this sort of thing.
Quote:
The issue is not worth considering, at least not in the context of this debate, because it has absolutely nothing to do with voter ID laws.

If voter ID laws are related to the issue of who exactly is casting the vote, I do see this issue as relevant. In the case of severe dementia patients, we do have other people casting votes in their name--and this goes on both at the polls and by absentee ballot. And, in states like Florida, with a large elderly population, that can influence an election.
Quote:
Dementia and the Voter
Research Raises Ethical, Constitutional Questions

By Shankar Vedantam
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 14, 2004

Florida neurologist Marc Swerdloff was taken aback when one of his patients with advanced dementia voted in the 2000 presidential election. The man thought it was 1942 and Franklin D. Roosevelt was president. The patient's wife revealed that she had escorted her husband into the booth.

"I said 'Did he pick?' and she said 'No, I picked for him,' " Swerdloff said. "I felt bad. She essentially voted twice" in the Florida election, which gave George W. Bush a 537-vote victory and the White House.


As swing states with large elderly populations such as Florida gear up for another presidential election, a sleeper issue has been gaining attention on medical, legal and political radar screens: Many people with advanced dementia appear to be voting in elections -- including through absentee ballot. Although there are no national statistics, two studies in Pennsylvania and Rhode Island found that patients at dementia clinics turned out in higher numbers than the general population.

About 4.5 million Americans have Alzheimer's disease, the most common cause of dementia. Florida alone has 455,000 patients, advocates estimate.

Concern is growing that people with dementia may be targets for partisan exploitation in nursing homes and other facilities. Even without abuse, family members and caregivers may unduly influence close elections.

"Precisely because Alzheimer's disease insidiously erodes the ability to make reasoned judgments . . . it is somewhat unnerving to consider that patients with dementia may routinely contribute to selecting the leader of the free world," Victor W. Henderson and David A. Drachman wrote after the 2000 election in the journal Neurology.

Many people with mild dementia are able to understand the issues in an election, but experts say there is no way to test voter competence. While many states have laws governing who is eligible to vote, attempts to disenfranchise voters with dementia could face constitutional challenge. Unlike driving, which is a privilege, voting is a right.

"I think it's a very important issue, and I think it is striking how little law there is on the subject," said Erwin Chemerinsky, a political scientist and constitutional scholar at Duke University. Although the state could deny voting rights to people incapable of understanding what was at stake, he said, "the legal challenges are going to be on how that's defined."

Jennifer Mathis, a Washington lawyer at the Judge David L. Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, a disability rights group, said: "Our voting system does not require intelligent voting or informed voting. The Supreme Court has said the idea of informed voting is too susceptible to abuse."

Advocates such as Mathis say that disqualifying groups of voters usually leads to discrimination. Paupers, slaves and women were once ruled incompetent to vote -- and recent scrutiny of people with dementia has led to allegations of abuse.

In California, for example, Democrats are suing the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Menlo Park for preventing activists from talking to residents and homeless veterans. Lawyer Scott Rafferty, a member of presidential candidate John F. Kerry's steering committee, said he was turned away on the grounds that residents have dementia.

Rafferty said that most of the residents were of sound mind -- and that most were Democrats. He charged the Bush administration with suppressing Democratic turnout. The Department of Veterans Affairs said it was protecting patients and was required by law to keep out partisan activity.

About 45 states have laws that address whether people who are unable to look after their own finances or health are allowed to vote, Chemerinsky said. About 25 states automatically terminate the right to vote if a person is under the care of a guardian, Mathis added, but those laws are often arcane -- and unevenly enforced.

The result could hardly be worse: a pastiche of outmoded laws that are out of touch with current science and are being applied inconsistently and arbitrarily. Many competent people in nursing facilities are being prevented from voting, advocates say, even as caregivers of other patients with severe dementia vote on their behalf.

"I have had caregivers accompany dementia patients into the booth and vote for them," said Jean Merget, a social worker at the North Broward Memory Disorder Center in Pompano Beach, Fla., who said she repeatedly heard of the practice during support group meetings. "This is not uncommon, especially in Florida."

Germaine L. Odenheimer, a neurologist and geriatrician, recalled seeing activists from the League of Women Voters coming through the VA nursing home in Gainesville, Fla., and registering residents to vote. "A large portion of the residents were demented," said Odenheimer, who now works at the University of Oklahoma. She said she asked activists from the nonpartisan group how they judged which patients were mentally competent. "I never had a satisfactory answer," she said.

Many states do not bar people with dementia from voting unless they have been ruled unfit by court order -- a procedure rarely invoked. Some states automatically disenfranchise people who are under the care of a guardian, but such laws may be overly broad and unconstitutional. After the 2000 presidential election, for instance, disability rights advocates in Maine won a ruling that a law disenfranchising mentally ill voters under the care of a guardian was unconstitutional. Lawyer Kristin Aiello said the law also violated the Americans With Disabilities Act and federal civil rights laws barring discrimination.

"The difficulty is in drawing the line of who is entitled to vote and who is not," said Henderson, a professor of neurology at Stanford University. "Someone who is illiterate can vote. Someone who is intoxicated can vote. . . . It's easy to say people with dementia shouldn't vote, but once you look at the complexity of the issue, the solutions aren't easy."

Alzheimer's disease is characterized by memory loss, disorientation and problems with thinking. In advanced stages of dementia, patients can find it impossible to dress themselves, understand questions or even recognize loved ones. Sometimes, experts say, just asking patients if they want to vote can distinguish people who are competent from those who are not -- patients with severe dementia are usually not interested. It is their families and caregivers who understand the importance of the vote.

Without clear guidelines, however, poll workers and nursing home administrators are deciding which patients are competent to vote, but those decisions are not based on science. Widely used dementia tests provide scores indicating the degree of impairment but are not a reliable predictor of voting competence, experts say. Different people with the same scores may understand an election differently. A person's condition can change, so that a ruling of competence in April may not hold true in November.

"You want a cutoff point where you can say clearly there is so much impairment these people can't make a competent choice," said Brian R. Ott, a scientist at Brown University, "but we don't have a way of defining that cut point."

Ott surveyed 100 patients at a Rhode Island dementia clinic after the 2000 presidential election and found that 60 percent had voted. In another survey, Jason H.T. Karlawish and other researchers found that 64 percent of patients attending a dementia clinic in Pennsylvania had voted in the same election. While more severely impaired patients were less likely to vote, many with advanced Alzheimer's did vote. Ott found that 37 percent of patients with moderate dementia and about 18 percent with severe dementia had voted.

Neurologists are divided about how much help a spouse should offer a patient in voting: "Certainly it seems if I give my wife the right to make decisions about my health care -- keep him on life support or not -- you would think voting would be something she could do," said Ronald C. Petersen, director of the Mayo Clinic's Alzheimer's Disease Research Center in Rochester, Minn. At the same time, he said, it is reasonable to ask whether a person who had lost the ability to care for himself should also lose the ability to vote.

The Alzheimer's Association, a nonprofit science and advocacy group, receives calls every election season from families and nursing homes asking whether patients can vote. The answer is yes, said Stephen McConnell, senior vice president for advocacy and public policy at the association.

"Then they say, 'Can I vote for him?' " McConnell said. "We say, 'No, you can't vote for him. You can make decisions about his finances or health care or whether he should participate in research, but you can't vote for him.' " McConnell said a group of experts wrestled with the issue in August 2003 and agreed that patients even partly cognizant of the election should be allowed to vote.

As the baby boomers age, the number of Alzheimer's cases will soar, and experts said it is time for the nation to grapple with the issue -- if only to head off abuse.

Swerdloff said he wondered whether the Florida woman who voted for her demented husband was guilty of fraud. And he worried about activists going into nursing homes, where two-thirds of the residents have Alzheimer's disease.

"If they can go into a nursing home, why not go into an ICU and have a person who is comatose and on a ventilator -- let the caregiver vote," he said. "Then you say if a person is registered to vote, what about the brain-dead person?"

But Adam Butler of the Disability Rights Center in Little Rock said such talk holds people with disabilities to a higher standard than the rest of the population. No tests of mental competence are required to stand for office, and no law prevents "competent" voters from choosing candidates for questionable reasons: "People may vote because they like the way George W. Bush looks or because they like Heinz ketchup."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18916-2004Sep13.html

If the Republicans pull this stuff with passing the voter ID laws to try to maximize their influence on election day, don't tell me they aren't probably trying to get the votes of nursing homes and assisted living facility populations, or some of the 455,000 + people with Alzheimer's living in Florida alone--we're talking about a lot of votes--and they may well be getting people to cast votes in the name of dementia patients, particularly in places like Florida.

If you don't find this issue relevant or interesting, just disregard it.
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Aug, 2012 07:49 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
I believe the guarantee and the requirements for voting rest with the states and not the Fed govt.

I think you're right.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Aug, 2012 08:03 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
"Precisely because Alzheimer's disease insidiously erodes the ability to make reasoned judgments . . . it is somewhat unnerving to consider that patients with dementia may routinely contribute to selecting the leader of the free world," Victor W. Henderson and David A. Drachman wrote after the 2000 election in the journal Neurology.


Both had their tongues firmly stuck in their respective cheeks.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Aug, 2012 08:18 pm
@cicerone imposter,
If you want to describe that application process, and a voter card resulting from it, I might be quite satisfied.

Might be. . . .
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Aug, 2012 06:54 am
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.


Take note the GOP plot of interfering with citizens rights to votes is aiming at a group that is largely black.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  4  
Reply Sun 5 Aug, 2012 09:03 am
@firefly,
firefly wrote:
If voter ID laws are related to the issue of who exactly is casting the vote, I do see this issue as relevant.

You just got finished saying it wasn't relevant. Make up your mind.

firefly wrote:
In the case of severe dementia patients, we do have other people casting votes in their name--and this goes on both at the polls and by absentee ballot. And, in states like Florida, with a large elderly population, that can influence an election.

None of which voter ID laws would stop.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Sun 5 Aug, 2012 09:36 am
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:

firefly wrote:
The issue of whether any voters have been disenfranchised by these laws has yet to be demonstrated--it is not a given. All I'm hearing, certainly in this thread, is speculation that that might occur. Has disenfranchisement actually been established or demonstrated anywhere--where these laws have been in effect?

You have got to be kidding me.

OK, if we're going to go this route: I'll I'm hearing is speculation that in-person voter fraud might occur. Has in-person voting fraud actually been established or demonstrated?
still interested in a reply.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Aug, 2012 11:00 am
@roger,
You never registered to vote? How interesting!
Here's a typical voter registration form (from NY).
http://i45.tinypic.com/1235s0n.jpg
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Aug, 2012 12:33 pm
@DrewDad,
Quote:
still interested in a reply.

Advanced dementia patients who are accompanied into a voter booth by a caretaker, who actually does the selecting and the casting of the vote, would be an example of voter fraud.

While that sort of fraud wouldn't be prevented by voter IDs, it none-the-less is a type of voter fraud which can be influenced by partisan factions and affect the outcome of elections. And it is an issue receiving continuing scrutiny, research, and ethical/legal consideration in the U.S., Canada, and the U.K, as larger numbers of people reach advanced ages.
'
I've made it quite clear in this thread that, unlike partisan motivations for these voter ID laws, I am interested in the issue of voter fraud and I do think it is valid to require some sort of ID at the polls. Like Mame, I am bothered that I am never asked for any ID, not even the postcard that's sent out to remind me of the location of my polling place.

And yes, they have had cases of in-person voter fraud at the polls, like "ghosts" voting for deceased persons, which I believe occurred in a 2004 gubernatorial election, although no one, including the GOP, has claimed this is a widespread problem. But, I feel, the goal should be to try to eliminate any voter fraud at the polls as much as possible.

But you didn't answer my question--Has disenfranchisement actually been established or demonstrated anywhere--where these laws have been in effect? Has it been shown, in Indiana, for instance, where such a law has been in effect for several years?

In Pennsylvania, the situation of how many people might need to acquire additional photo IDs is extremely muddled--for instance, people they initially thought might need these IDs are already on the DOT lists of licensed drivers or those holding non-driver IDs, so they already have acceptable IDs--and there are no accurate figures available on how many would need to acquire a new form of ID in order to vote, and I posted several links to support that. This was all brought out at the recently concluded hearings challenging the voter ID law, and I seem to be the only one here who has actually referenced the hearings, and the actual legal issues involved in challenging this law.

It's no great secret why the GOP has been pushing these voter ID laws, they are trying to gain partisan advantage by doing that. Political parties do these things, and you have to credit the GOP for finding ingenious ways to do that, providing these initiatives are lawful. And of course these tactics will leave Democrats fuming. The question, and the only significant question, is whether these laws can withstand legal challenges based on state constitutions and federal voting rights acts. In some states, portions of these laws have already been struck down, and the outcome in Pennsylvania remains to be seen.

Hyped-up racial/Nazi propaganda of the sort coming from BillRM does nothing to further a rational discussion. Southern states already receive heightened scrutiny from the federal government regarding changes in voting laws, and the Attorney General has already indicated they will investigate the situation in Pennsylvania to see if violations of federal laws might be going on with their new law--but, so far, that has not been found to be the case. And, just as the GOP is trying to gain political advantage by pushing through these voter ID laws, the Democrats are using code words, like "Jim Crow" to try to mobilize blacks to turn out in larger numbers than they did in 2010, in order to give Obama the margin of victory he needs, particularly in swing states. And anyone who doesn't believe that is politically naive.
If Attorney General Holder really believes the Pennsylvania law is the return of "Jim Crow", he should be removed from office for not doing his job in enforcing federal laws.

Consistently in this thread, people, like you, have ignored the fact that Pennsylvania has said it will issue voter photo ID cards, free of charge, without the requirement of a birth certificate, to those who cannot otherwise obtain the necessary ID to vote. In additional, they will have provisional ballots at the polls for those who show up without ID. And you have failed to indicate why these measures would not satisfy most of the objections you have to the law.

Whether the law is needed is not an essential issue legally--the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that a state has a valid interest in trying to protect and improve the integrity of the voting process. And the GOP has been trying to take advantage of that ruling by passing more voter ID laws. In Pennsylvania, they did not claim that voter fraud was a problem in defending this law at the recent hearings challenging the law--both sides stipulated to the fact that there was no widespread evidence of voter fraud. The state simply contended that they have a legal right to pass such a law--and the opposition contended that it violated the rights given in the state constitution. So now a judge will rule by the week of August 13th, and both sides have already said they will appeal the ruling if they don't like the decision.

While I would like to see some form of uniform voter ID required at the polls, I would want that form of ID provided free of charge to all registered voters, and I don't support the law in Pennsylvania which provides for a hodge-podge of different acceptable IDs. I also think that evidence of discrimination, including efforts to interfere with voter registration, is much more apparent in places like Texas and Florida than it is in Pennsylvania, and I'm not sure that what's going on in different places can be meaningfully lumped together.

So "voter fraud" is already a non-issue in the case of the Pennsylvania law--the state conceded that. The remaining issues are whether the law violates the state constitution and any federal voting acts--and that's not going to be decided by anyone in this thread, and it hasn't yet been decided by those with the actual authority to render such a decision.

I think implementation of this law will be blocked. The state isn't even ready to implement it.





ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Aug, 2012 12:41 pm
@firefly,
the question was

DrewDad wrote:
Has in-person voting fraud actually been established or demonstrated?


your answer was

firefly wrote:
let me make more stuff up and see if it distracts you from the fact I'm not answering your question




this is the kind of response you say you prefer, instead of being thumbed down. I'm keeping that in mind.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/26/2024 at 04:27:41